Where do UK clinicians find information at the point of care? A pragmatic, exploratory study.

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Margaret McCartney, Kate Connolly, Frank Sullivan, Carl Heneghan, Elijah Yu Heng Ho, Brid Hendry, Charlotte Salisbury, Sam Offer, David Nunan
{"title":"Where do UK clinicians find information at the point of care? A pragmatic, exploratory study.","authors":"Margaret McCartney, Kate Connolly, Frank Sullivan, Carl Heneghan, Elijah Yu Heng Ho, Brid Hendry, Charlotte Salisbury, Sam Offer, David Nunan","doi":"10.1186/s12875-024-02627-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To describe where clinical information is contemporarily and commonly found in UK primary care, what is favoured by clinicians, and whether this is (1) publicly funded (2) has commercial potential conflicts of interest.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A mixed methods study, consisting of (1) site visits to general practices in Scotland, (2) online questionnaire, focused on UK general practice (3) analysis of materials cited by professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data about sources of clinical information used was obtained verbally, visually and via search histories on computers from visits. This was used to inform a questionnaire in which primary care clinicians in the four nations of the UK were invited to participate. This obtained data about the information sources used and preferred by clinicians. This information was searched for data about funding and conflicts of interest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 2022, four practices were visited. 337 clinicians, 280 of whom were general practitioners completed an online questionnaire. 136 different resources were identified. These were mainly websites but sources of information included colleagues, either in practice or through online networks, apps, local guidelines, health charities, and learning resources aimed at GPs. Of these, 70 were not publicly funded, and were a mixture of membership organisations, charities, or sponsored venues.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary care clinicians obtain information for themselves and patients from a wide variety of sources. Funding is from a variety of sources and some contain advertising and/or sponsorship, risking commercial bias.</p><p><strong>Protocol: </strong>Pre-published at https://osf.io/wrzqk .</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02627-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To describe where clinical information is contemporarily and commonly found in UK primary care, what is favoured by clinicians, and whether this is (1) publicly funded (2) has commercial potential conflicts of interest.

Design and setting: A mixed methods study, consisting of (1) site visits to general practices in Scotland, (2) online questionnaire, focused on UK general practice (3) analysis of materials cited by professionals.

Methods: Data about sources of clinical information used was obtained verbally, visually and via search histories on computers from visits. This was used to inform a questionnaire in which primary care clinicians in the four nations of the UK were invited to participate. This obtained data about the information sources used and preferred by clinicians. This information was searched for data about funding and conflicts of interest.

Results: Over 2022, four practices were visited. 337 clinicians, 280 of whom were general practitioners completed an online questionnaire. 136 different resources were identified. These were mainly websites but sources of information included colleagues, either in practice or through online networks, apps, local guidelines, health charities, and learning resources aimed at GPs. Of these, 70 were not publicly funded, and were a mixture of membership organisations, charities, or sponsored venues.

Conclusions: Primary care clinicians obtain information for themselves and patients from a wide variety of sources. Funding is from a variety of sources and some contain advertising and/or sponsorship, risking commercial bias.

Protocol: Pre-published at https://osf.io/wrzqk .

英国临床医生在护理点从何处获取信息?一项务实的探索性研究。
目的:描述英国基层医疗机构中当代常见的临床信息,临床医生青睐的信息,以及这些信息是否(1)由政府资助(2)存在商业潜在利益冲突:一项混合方法研究,包括:(1) 实地考察苏格兰的全科实践;(2) 在线问卷调查,重点是英国的全科实践;(3) 分析专业人士引用的资料:方法:通过口头、直观以及访问过程中电脑的搜索历史记录获取有关临床信息来源的数据。我们利用这些数据制作了一份调查问卷,邀请英国四个国家的初级保健临床医生参加。调查获得了临床医生使用和偏好的信息来源数据。在这些信息中还搜索了有关资金和利益冲突的数据:在 2022 年期间,共访问了四家诊所。337 名临床医生(其中 280 人为全科医生)完成了在线问卷调查。确定了 136 种不同的资源。这些资源主要是网站,但信息来源也包括实践中的同事或通过在线网络、应用程序、地方指南、健康慈善机构以及针对全科医生的学习资源。其中,有 70 个不是由政府资助的,是会员组织、慈善机构或赞助场所的混合体:结论:初级保健临床医生从各种渠道为自己和患者获取信息。资金来源多种多样,有些还包含广告和/或赞助,存在商业偏见的风险:预发表于 https://osf.io/wrzqk 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信